Anna G Staudacher1, Anju T Peters2, Atsushi Kato1, Whitney W Stevens3. 1. Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Otolaryngology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Department of Otolaryngology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: whitney-stevens@northwestern.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With the advent of new treatment options for Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS) comes the ability for physicians to provide more individualized patient care. Physicians are now tasked with identifying who may be the best candidate for a particular therapy. In this review, existing biomarkers and potentially new methods that could guide treatment choices in CRS patients will be discussed. DATA SOURCES: Published literature obtained through PubMed searches. STUDY SELECTION: Studies relevant to inflammatory endotypes, phenotypes, and biomarkers in CRS were included. RESULTS: Currently, there are no clinically validated tools that determine the best therapeutic modality for CRS patients with or without nasal polyps (CRSwNP or CRSsNP). Patients with CRS can be classified into three endotypes based on the presence of type 1, type 2, or type 3 inflammation. CRS endotypes can be influenced by age and geographic location. Clinical application however may be limited since endotyping current requires basic research laboratory support. Clinical symptoms may also predict inflammatory endotypes with smell loss being indicative of type 2 inflammation. Numbers of tissue and/or peripheral eosinophils as well as levels of IgE may predict disease severity in CRSwNP but not necessarily treatment responses. Unique clinical phenotypes or biomarkers are especially lacking that predict type 1 or type 3 inflammation in CRSwNP or type 1, type 2, or type 3 inflammation in CRSsNP. CONCLUSION: While significant progress has been made in characterizing endotypes, phenotypes, and biomarkers in CRS, additional studies are needed to determine if and how these factors could assist physicians in providing more individualized clinical care.
OBJECTIVE: With the advent of new treatment options for Chronic Rhinosinusitis (CRS) comes the ability for physicians to provide more individualized patient care. Physicians are now tasked with identifying who may be the best candidate for a particular therapy. In this review, existing biomarkers and potentially new methods that could guide treatment choices in CRSpatients will be discussed. DATA SOURCES: Published literature obtained through PubMed searches. STUDY SELECTION: Studies relevant to inflammatory endotypes, phenotypes, and biomarkers in CRS were included. RESULTS: Currently, there are no clinically validated tools that determine the best therapeutic modality for CRSpatients with or without nasal polyps (CRSwNP or CRSsNP). Patients with CRS can be classified into three endotypes based on the presence of type 1, type 2, or type 3 inflammation. CRS endotypes can be influenced by age and geographic location. Clinical application however may be limited since endotyping current requires basic research laboratory support. Clinical symptoms may also predict inflammatory endotypes with smell loss being indicative of type 2 inflammation. Numbers of tissue and/or peripheral eosinophils as well as levels of IgE may predict disease severity in CRSwNP but not necessarily treatment responses. Unique clinical phenotypes or biomarkers are especially lacking that predict type 1 or type 3 inflammation in CRSwNP or type 1, type 2, or type 3 inflammation in CRSsNP. CONCLUSION: While significant progress has been made in characterizing endotypes, phenotypes, and biomarkers in CRS, additional studies are needed to determine if and how these factors could assist physicians in providing more individualized clinical care.
Authors: David C Lin; Rakesh K Chandra; Bruce K Tan; Whitney Zirkle; David B Conley; Leslie C Grammer; Robert C Kern; Robert P Schleimer; Anju T Peters Journal: Am J Rhinol Allergy Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.467
Authors: Seong H Cho; Seung J Hong; Brian Han; Sun H Lee; Lydia Suh; James Norton; David Lin; David B Conley; Rakesh Chandra; Robert C Kern; Bruce K Tan; Atsushi Kato; Anju Peters; Leslie C Grammer; Robert P Schleimer Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Tanya M Laidlaw; Calman Prussin; Reynold A Panettieri; Stella Lee; Berrylin J Ferguson; Nithin D Adappa; Andrew P Lane; Marina L Palumbo; Mary Sullivan; Don Archibald; Steven I Dworetzky; Gregory T Hebrank; Michael E Bozik Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Claus Bachert; Ana R Sousa; Valerie J Lund; Glenis K Scadding; Philippe Gevaert; Shuaib Nasser; Stephen R Durham; Marjolein E Cornet; Harsha H Kariyawasam; Jane Gilbert; Daren Austin; Aoife C Maxwell; Richard P Marshall; Wytske J Fokkens Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2017-07-04 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Brian S Schwartz; Saba A Al-Sayouri; Jonathan S Pollak; Annemarie G Hirsch; Robert Kern; Bruce Tan; Atsushi Kato; Robert P Schleimer; Anju T Peters Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 14.290
Authors: Alexander L Schneider; Samuel D Racette; Anthony K Kang; Abhita T Reddy; Julia H Huang; David S Lehmann; Caroline P E Price; Jacob G Eide; Samuel R Rodeghiero; David B Conley; Kevin C Welch; Robert C Kern; Stephanie Shintani-Smith; Anju T Peters; Atsushi Kato; Whitney S Stevens; Robert P Schleimer; Bruce K Tan Journal: Int Forum Allergy Rhinol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 5.426
Authors: Zachary M Soler; Rodney J Schlosser; Todd E Bodner; Jeremiah A Alt; Vijay R Ramakrishnan; Jose L Mattos; Jennifer K Mulligan; Jess C Mace; Timothy L Smith Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 10.793